Introduction

What if I told you that there is a conspiracy of enormous proportions taking place at this very moment? One that will ultimately cause the destruction of kings, nations, peoples and principalities. In other words, the end of this world system. A conspiracy that is so subtle, it's almost undetectable. One that is so massive in scope, that it includes tens of millions of people and most governments world wide...Would you believe me?

Your very life depends on whether or not you believe and act upon what I am about to tell you.

This is not a hoax, or a fairy tale.

 What you will learn here is... TRUTH. And the truth is not something that can be bent, shifted, looked at from a different angle or viewed in a different light. The truth is as infallible and unchangeable as certain laws of physics.

Before we begin, I would like you to keep an open mind and at least examine the possibility. Take a look at the points that are being made, and even do your own research.

Most adults are aware that something is going on, but few know exactly what. Turn on the evening news and have a seat. It won't be long before the news caster gives you the gory details of a horrifying event carried out by some deranged individual. An event such as that which took place in the Tampa Bay area of Florida mid July, 2000: a frustrated young man in his early twenties, for reasons apparently unknown, decides to beat his infant son to death. Or how about this one: teenage girl throws her newborn baby out the window of a moving vehicle. Or yet another: teenage boy takes his archery set and kills his mother while she slept with an arrow through her head. These are just a few out of many violent (and for those who don't know) senseless acts that have become a normal or at least, acceptable part of our society; Acceptable in the sense of being passive.

So how is all of the violence in the world tied to a conspiracy of deception? In order to get a better understanding of the conspiracy, we must first take a closer look at the decline in moral values and how they parallel current acts of violence.

Definition of MORALS:

• Moral practices or teachings

• Modes of conduct

• Ethics

Definition of MORALITY:

• A moral discourse, statement, or lesson

• A doctrine or system of moral conduct

• Particular moral principles or rules of conduct

• Conformity to ideals of right human conduct

 In the early 1900's, morality took on a very different meaning than it does today. Giving someone "your word” was a thing of honor and a badge of trust. Business deals were sealed with a hand shake. People could walk down the street in relative safety and  more often than not, would have been greeted in a pleasant or at least cordial manner. If a woman wore a dress with the hem line just a few inches above her ankles, she would have been consider a floozy and shunned by those in respectable circles. Sure, there were violent crimes, robberies and even child abuse, but they were nowhere near the proportions that we see them today.

In our present day society, trust is all but a thing of the past. "Your word", is just a bunch of hot air. What has taken its place is your social security number; DOB (Date of Birth); address for the past five years; references and credit reports; and soon, implantable micro chips. If a woman wore an old fashioned dress with the hem line just a few inches above her ankles today, she would be considered weird, a prude.

WHAT'S MORALLY ACCEPTABLE IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY

• The murdering of unborn children (Abortion)

• The murdering of partially born children (Partial Birth Abortion); one of the most horrific and inhumane methods of killing an unwanted child. (It's absolutely amazing that we, as a society, can allow such procedures to be preformed yet still refer to ourselves as good human beings... civilized.

Pornography

• Sexual fornication, adultery and prostitution

• Homosexuality

• Drug abuse

• Perversions and Crimes of every sort imaginable

The above list contains just a few key points which I would like to take a little time to examine more closely.

 Let's take a look at abortion: not too many years ago, abortion was view as a last choice option. The shame that an unmarried expectant  mother would most likely face once it has been discovered that she was pregnant; may have been the young women's' main consideration when deciding whether or not to get an abortion. Having to face her her parents searing remarks, disgust and the disappointment they had in her would certainly add fuel to the fire in favor of carrying out the secret procedure. And sometimes, the father of the unborn child, and or his parents would become the driving forces in determining what steps should be taken. In most cases when the decision was made to get an abortion, it was because either the child was conceived through rape; The girl was unmarried and/or too young and the parents may have insisted in order to keep the family honor.

 Have you heard of Partial Birth Abortion? Do you know how it is performed?

Well your about to find out.

1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body except for the head.

4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.

5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. (images)

Look at how far into the sewer we've gone. Abortion is no longer a perceived matter of necessity, but instead it has become as trivial as a matter of convenience. Sleep around when ever you want, and if you make a mistake... who cares... just get rid of it like some piece of worthless garbage and the problem goes away.

Abortionists like to use the terms "embryo" or "fetus", which are deceptive names for "an unborn human child". And likewise the term "abortion" which is another name for 'MURDER". By calling the act of murder "abortion" and denying the fact that there is a living little person in the mothers womb, we gradually and over time, become desensitized to this wicked practice. No matter how you look at it... it is without a doubt, the murder of a would-be future person.

Did you know that some in the medical field want to keep abortion at an all time high? An abortionist can perform a significant number of abortions per day, earning a decent profit on each. In addition, abortion makes an easy, plentiful supply of human tissue and organs... for free. Abortion is also a tool used to thin out the population by way of murder with the blessings of the Government. There doesn't have to be an issue with the woman's or the child's health. The pregnancy doesn't have to be the result of a sexual assault or incest. The abortion can be preformed for practically any reason at all; And in some places, the medical staff doesn't even need the permission of the parents of pregnant minors.

There are approximately 6.3 million pregnancies every year in the United States. Of those 6 million plus pregnancies, 48% of them were unintended. That's 3,024,000 accidental babies that their parents never intended to have. But, the worst part of these statistics are that 47% of the pregnancies end in abortion. That translates into  1,421,280 unborn babies being killed every year. Just imagine, if your mother had decided to abort you... you wouldn't be reading this message.

Our moral values have declined so much so, that we now go about our daily lives in a depraved state of existence calling evil good and good evil. The change is slow and gradual but steady. With each passing day, society sinks deeper and deeper into the abyss. Allowing more and more perversions to take place without so much as a surprised glance.

The statements that I make here are not intended to anger anyone, but the TRUTH must be revealed.

Would you drink gasoline... or fill your cars gas tank with water? Does a lion eat vegetables... or does a rabbit eat meat? What about a man giving birth... or a woman being able to father a child?

Of course not... everything in life has its proper order. Men and women were designed to fit together, both physically and emotionally, even as far as the raising of children. Ideally, it takes a man and a women to raise a child. Men instill certain values and characteristics to the children that only men have. Likewise women instill certain values and characteristics that only women have.

I'm sure that many of you believe in the theory of evolution. Why then are there not any species that have evolved to homosexuality except mankind? There are some species that are able to change their sex. If there is a shortage of males for example, then a female of the species can become a male in order to reproduce. Or likewise, if there is a shortage of females, then the male can become a female. But, the reason is to continue the line... to keep from becoming extinct. Sex, has one purpose and one purpose only. And that's for the continuation of the species. Of course it was meant to be a pleasurable experience. If sex was distasteful or an undesirable act, then most of us probably wouldn’t be here.

Homosexuality is another example of deteriorating moral values which is also a forerunner for even more perverse acts. If the homosexual (alternative) life style is accepted as normal, then it will open the door for other groups who have "different taste". If homosexuality is normalized, then why not bestiality or child molestation? It's not as far fetched as it sounds. Not too long ago, I heard a televised report about a group of individuals who wanted  the act of having sex with children to be legalized...

It may take a long time to demoralize society to the point of total acceptance, but eventually (if the world were to last long enough) most forms of sexual preference would be acceptable as simply an alternate life style. Just look at what's acceptable now in the so called age of enlightenment by comparison to twenty, fifty or one hundred years ago.

A moral nation does well and prospers but, a vile and depraved nation is like a piece of rotting flesh. It festers and decays. Slowly at first, but as the degenerative process continues and with ever increasing rapidity... eventually it is nothing but dust...

Pornography, fornication and adultery, prostitution, drugs and alcohol, are all a cancerous blight on American society. They help to promote violence and crime as well as to determine what sort of world we live in both now and in the future.

Negative impact on society:

Pornography:

• Increases sexual desire to an abnormal and even dangerous level.

• Creates false perceptions of women and men.

• Creates discourse in marriage by producing feelings of inadequacy and dissatisfaction with one’s mate.

• Victimizes children through divorce and sometimes, sexual abuse.

• Increases child slavery and child prostitution, where young girls and boys are forced to perform sexual acts by violence, the threat of violence, forced drug addiction or in exchange for food and shelter.

(The majority of child prostitutes in America are run a ways that quickly fall victim to sexual predators).

Sexual fornication Adultery and Prostitution:

• Spreads sexually transmitted diseases.

• Produces unwanted, fatherless children who are then instilled with the values or valueless ness of their adulterous or prostitute mothers.

• Subjects children of an adulterous relationship the hazards of being raised by the husband of the adulteress.
• Places children under subjection to all the Johns and pimps that pass through a prostitute’s doorway.
• Increases illegal drug sales. (A vast number of street level prostitutes are also heavy drug users).

 Drugs:

• Stifles economic growth of neighborhoods and entire cities. (Turns areas into ghettos).

• Bankrolls illegal gang activities.

• Increases murder, robbery, rape and child abuse.

• Causes hopelessness and despair. Which in turn causes another generation to fall victim to this insidious plot.

Alcohol:

• Reduces on-the-job productivity.

• Increases domestic violence and break up of the family.

• Increases child abuse.

• Increases traffic fatalities due to intoxicated drivers.

Some believe that the plight of the inner city does not and will not affect them. There fore, they concern themselves only a little. But remember, this great nation of ours is as a house with many rooms. There are different families living there, each having their own culture and their own ways.  Even though these families are all different from each other, there is a commonality... We all live in the same house! If a fire starts in one part of the house, does it not threaten your own security? And if it's allowed to continue, will it not burn down the whole house?

The more we accept, the more will be thrust upon us

In the early days of television, during such programs as The Dick Van Dike Show and I Love Lucy, what was allowed to be shown and or perceived was very different from what we accept as normal by today's standards.

The very idea of a man and his wife sleeping in the same bed together was taboo. Each bed room scene had two beds, one for him and one for her. Every one knew that they, as a married couple, had sex, but it wasn't the focus of the show. Even a lot of the films that were produced for the theater, would not show sex scenes other than a couple kissing and or embracing. One way that you could tell what happened next was... the camera would pan away and show a scene such as the curtains gently blowing in the breeze, or one or both parties smoking a cigarette afterwards.

As time went on, the writers, directors and producers of the movie industry gradually added scenes and language which were to push the limits.

The other day, I saw a television commercial that just twenty years ago would have caused a public out cry and most likely, would have been taken off the air. It was around 7:00 in the evening mid July 2000. I don't remember what was being advertised. What I do remember is: there were two young men jogging down a path in a partially isolated area, when one of them strayed off the path and into a grassy field in order to relieve himself. Suddenly, he was bitten by a snake, somewhere on his upper leg or thigh. His running mate ran over to give medical assistance. He drops to his knees, places his mouth over the wound and begins to suck out the venom. Just about that time, a young woman came jogging down the same path. As the camera pulled back to capture the entire scene, it appeared as if the man who had been bitten by the snake, was receiving oral sex from his (male) partner.

What affect do you think that commercial will have on young people? Is there a hidden agenda? Someone trying to kill two birds with one stone? Perhaps the writers of this commercial were not only trying to sell a product, but also to promote homosexuality as an alternative life style or as a normal situation. One thing is certain, if confronted, they would never admit to having an ulterior motive.

Television programming is not the only culprit. Have you listened to the lyrics of a lot of the popular music lately? There are tunes that sing and or talk about doing all sorts of evil deeds. Everything from killing police officers, to treating women like dogs, to taking what you want by force. I have heard songs that tell the listener to: kill your mom, kill your teacher, sacrifice to the devil, hate, steal, hurt... and the list goes on and on. Is there any need to wonder why our young people are so angry? Why there's so much disrespect?

If you think that what you see and hear doesn't affect you then how about this: Ever go to a martial arts movie? After the movie was over, did you feel like an expert, or a tough guy? Did you ever watch a movie where the main character (one of the good guys) received one injustice after another? Did it make you angry or upset? What about that sad movie, did it make you cry?

 Adolph Hitler used the power of speech in order to captivate his audience. With a philosophy based on distorted perceptions, racism, nationalism and the prospect of greatness and power through world domination, he was able to persuade his followers. Being like zombies, they carried out Hitler's diabolical scheme... ever pressing forward with little or no reasoning.

What if the German people or even the peoples of the world had decided to oppose the dictatorship of Adolph Hitler before he had a chance to consolidate his power? Would he still have been responsible for the murder of over six million innocent Jewish people? Would all of those valiant allied soldiers have died?

The German soldiers who also died did so because they accepted the doctrines of a mad man. I won't go into it here, but if you were to research Adolph and what he believed in along with the things that he did, I'm sure that you would discover that he had in fact been deceived into believing the

Lies.

The point is this; what we see and hear definitely affects our emotional state of mind and can even affect our thought processes and behavioral patterns. In essence, it can change who we are.

Who's Responsible

As I said in the first paragraph, tens of millions are involved, along with most governments world wide, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Most participants don't even know why they are doing what they do. They seem to be oblivious to their part in the conspiracy. Each one focuses on his or her own agenda and even though they may be separated by time and distance, it still fits into the master plan.

There will be more on the master plan later.

Politicians... who are they? Are they individuals who through a sense of unfaltering loyalty to country, flag and citizens, selflessly dedicate their lives to their nation, and the principles on which it was founded? Or are they ordinary people just seeking power, fame and fortune?

In part, politicians are responsible. They seek to change the laws in order to appease or manipulate the population... a population which has already been tricked into lowering its moral values and accepting any "feel good" philosophy. It has been said that, "if you stand for nothing... you'll fall for anything". I'm sorry to say that, most politicians fit the bill perfectly. They enter a political race with a long list of what they stand for... but will change their views in midstream. Not because they saw the light, but because they realized that their constituents have a different view. It's not just those running for office who will bow to public opinion, but also those (already in office) who know that reelection time is just around the corner.

Have you ever noticed your local governments highly publicized crack down on crime, or an attempt to get an important construction project off the ground right around election time? It couldn't possibly be because they're seeking reelection or (if they're leaving office) want to be remembered for their accomplishments could it? I like the style of our American forefathers... they may not have always been right, but they stood for what they believed in, sometimes until death.

The media, which includes, TV & radio news, programming, advertising agencies and news papers  have a primary focus of making money. But at the same time, most of them (especially the news and TV programming media) also have a hidden agenda to impose their views on an unsuspecting audience. It's a very subtle way to manipulate public opinion.

Do we even think for ourselves anymore? Or do we base our opinions on what the media portrays as the truth?

During both W.W.I and W.W.II, one of the most noticeable ways that the media and  governments manipulated public opinion, was to demonize the enemy. Portraying them in cartoon form as grotesquely hideous beast... a nation and a peoples who were incapable of expressing normal human emotions.

Today, the methods used are much more subtle and effective. But in many ways the same as what was used in the past. One example that comes to mind is the plight of black people in America. Subjected to the hate spawned fire of racism... a fire that not only burns the victim, but also consumes the perpetrator, and eventually, the nation.

Blacks in America are portrayed by the media as... well, almost the same way that the enemies in W.W.I and W.W.II were. Watch the news, whenever they're doing a negative story, (not on a particular event but in general) such as a story about drugs, crime or welfare, you will see African American people plastered all over the screen.  On the other hand, if the story is about something positive such as the good deeds of the medical profession, most of the faces shown are white. In the movies, blacks are presented as chauffeurs, garbage men, pimps & prostitutes, drug crazed addicts, gangsters and generally illiterate people with few if any good qualities. They are almost always subordinate to the "Caucasian" star of the film and if  in a position of authority such as the captain of a police force, then they're portrayed as if they really don't know what they're doing and should not even be in that position. When the reality is, there is a multitude of intelligent black people in this country and in the world. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, business owners and much more, as a matter of fact, the number one brain surgeon in all the world is a black man.

Subliminal? Is it reminiscent of the demonization tactics used during major conflicts between nations? If I were to ask you, "which group makes up the largest percentage of welfare recipients in the US" you would probable name one of the ethnic groups of color. But the statistics say that it's the "single white female" who's the number one welfare recipient in the US. But if left to the media, you would never be the wiser.

What possible reasons could the media have for creating such negative images in the minds of the general public? Answer... it's a major effort to control your mind, the outcome of events and to maintain a substantial influence over a nation and its people through deception. In other words, power.

Why do you think that nations such as Red China, only allow state run media organizations?

If a trusted friend of yours speaks badly about someone, it can cause you to develop a prejudice towards that person even though you've never met. Like wise, if the media, whom we've all come to trust (at least to some extent), gives us a biased view of ethnic groups, politics, religion etc., we can and sometimes do end up with the same views... especially if it appears that the majority of the population also has that view.

We trust the news media enough to believe most of what they tell us...

Case in point: in 1938, a book written by author H.G. Wells titled War of the Worlds, was broadcast live from the Mercury Theater. In short, the book was about the world being invaded by a superior alien life form from mars.

Without warning, the broadcaster interrupts the regularly scheduled program, and as a news caster would report a major catastrophe... began enacting the play complete with sound effects. Before it was all over, a significant portion of the American population were experiencing a case of mass hysteria.

Big Business, is another culprit in the conspiracy. Without any concern for their employees, they move jobs from this country to over seas all in the name of profits.     (This is just one example)

Every company endeavors to expand in order to assure its survival. Expansion requires large amounts of capital which can come from several sources. The company can fund its own expansion provided that its profits are sufficient. It can seek loans from financial institutions but, the company must either be solvent or show that they will be solvent after the loan. They can also seek out private investors or go public i.e. the stock market.

When a company sends business over seas, the results for Americans can be devastating. Workers are forced out of jobs. Families break up, which in turn add more burdens on society by increasing the need for government services to the newly under privileged. The federal, state and local tax base shrinks, which is where the funding for social services comes from. Domestic violence and divorce rates go up. Children have to adjust to being raised by one parent or have to split there time between the both of them. Parents and children alike turn to drugs and alcohol as a means to alleviate the pressure or sometimes, just to rebel against the system.

Why do companies send their business over seas? Is it because the cost of doing business in this country is too much to bear? In most cases the answer is no. Take a look at the following hypothetical example:

Why does the Big Bucks Company (fictitious), decide to ship its production line to Korea? Let's say that the company makes brooms for sweeping floors. The American worker gets paid $10.00 per hour plus another $8.00 in benefits. That's a total of $18.00 per hour. The worker produces 10 brooms each hour which sell to the retailer for $5.00 each. That's a total of $50.00 in gross receipts minus the $18.00 for employee cost and it leaves a meager $32.00. When you add in such cost as raw materials, office supplies, transportation, utilities, warehousing expenses etc., Mr. Big Bucks would be lucky to have a bottom line profit of a dollar or two. But when multiplied by the volume of sales annually, in can be in the millions.

At today's rate of exchange, Mr. big bucks himself would make an outrageous profit if he moves to Korea. Currently, $1.00 American is worth 1,298.7 Korean won (July 2001). So if the Korean worker was paid 18.00 won per hour, it would total around 1 1/2 cents US. Even after adding the above mentioned cost plus shipping and import duties, the bottom line profit would be staggering.

Mr. Big Bucks knows that he and his crew (executive staff) are making a good profit here in America but it's not about money, he already has enough for his family and generations to come. But instead, it's about power. It's about the power to change the course of national and even world events. It's about the God-like feeling one gets when offered free tickets the super bowl because of one's status. Or to be begged to attend a function of the aristocrats. Or the ability to pick up the phone and speak with the President of the United States.

Can you set up an appointment to speak with the President of the United States? What about Bill Gates, can he?

The power obtained by the few is generally acquired through the blood, sweet and tears of the many.

"I love power. But it is as an artist that I love it. I love it as a musician loves his violin, to draw out its sounds and chords and harmonies."    Napoleon Bonaparte

The Master Plan

I hope that by this time, you are beginning to glimpse the scope of this conspiracy and the affect that it's having on society as a whole. But, there is so much more, that I would have to write a book in order to totally expose the LIE, but because of the fact that time is so short, I must give you the condensed version...

We are being manipulated through a series of lies and misinformation. Manipulated in order to produce a peoples that will behave more like cattle... passively minding their own business, while being herded to where ever the owner desires and ultimately, being lead to the slaughter house. By the time they are aware of their fate, it's too late.

Have you ever given thought to what the existence of a horse wearing blinders must be like? The blinders are placed on the horses head to keep the horse from being distracted, only able to see what's directly in front of it. There fore, the horse goes through life without ever seeing the whole picture.

If we as people are forced to wear the blinders of deceit, then we too will not see the whole picture. And as a result, we as individuals will be lead to the slaughter.

Day is day and night is night, and the day cannot be called night, neither can the night be called day. Truth is truth; it cannot be subject to perceptions. It either is, or it is not.

Would anyone care for some evolution?

Did you know that some people call evolution "evil-lution"? The theory of evolution is taught in schools as fact. It goes something like this: hundreds of millions of years ago, some cosmic hicky-ma-doodles fell to earth and became life. Over the course of millions of years, this life crawled out of the water and onto dry land. This creature, after long periods of transitions then became a monkey and finally, became man (and all the other creatures that we know of). Of course, there were many different forms of life in between and it all took place over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

The theory of evolution came about as a result of a man named Charles Darwin (there were others before Darwin, but he has become a key figure). Darwin traveled to a remote island and observed all the animals that were there. He noticed that there were many similarities between the different species of animals and tentatively concluded that they must have come from a single species. From there the whole thing escalated to where it is today.

Even though he admitted in his book (Origin of Species) that, "My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this Abstract." and " No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone.”

One of Darwin's beliefs as a naturalist was, that humans, animals and insects are all accidents. He also believed that such vital parts of the human body (teeth, limbs, fingers etc.), which all serve a precise purpose and specific function, were just accidental... sort of a trail & error experiment of nature that lasted many generations (per species) and then finally, was gotten right.

Do you think it's possible that something as simple as your Timex wrist watch, could have over the course hundreds of millions of years, have come into existence by itself... without thought or purpose? Perhaps it started out as a sundial.

Take a look at the complexity of the human body. To say that the body, which is tens of thousands of times more complex than a 747, just by random chance happened to appear, is like saying that a tornado blew through a junk yard and formed a fully functional airplane. It's absurd. But yet, it's continually presented as fact.

The more that scientist explore the universe and life itself, the more they begin to realize that... life is by design.

Let's take a quick look at the insect world. There are many different species of insects. Some are predators, some are vegetarians and some eat what other animals and insects excrete as waste from their bodies and still others consume the rotting flesh of dead things. All of them have their own methods of self defense. One insect in particular, called the mantis, should give one reason to rethink their position on evolution. The praying mantis is a creature which is able to blend among the leaves of the trees and other vegetation almost undetectable.

According to the evolutionist, this creature would have evolved to Its present day form for at least several different reasons. One of which is that the mantis is much more likely to capture it's prey while at the same time avoid becoming some other creatures prey. Because of its inconspicuousness, it is able to help insure the survival of its species. The very concept speaks of a designer.

The simple fact that the mantis blends in with its environment should tell you that there's some form of intelligence at work. If it were not by design, then there would be no rhyme or reason, and the mantis could quite conceivable turn out in a hot pink color which would be most inviting to its predators. If it were a purely random, non conscious act, then why doesn't a green mantis live in an environment like the desert... where it would stick out like a sore thumb? It would have probably long since been extinct.

Ask yourself these questions:

• What forces could have possibly determined that outcome?

• If long hook-like limbs were needed to catch prey, how was that decision reached and by whom?

• If it were all accidental, then how did it turn out that all parts of this insect function with such precision as if by design?

If the mantis were an intelligent creature, it wouldn't be as hard to understand how over the course of millions of years, it had decided to give itself a better design through plastic surgery or genetic manipulation. If there were an overseer, some supreme being who looked at the situation and decided that there needed to be some changes made in the life of this particular insect, again it would easily understandable. But according to our scientist, insects have no intelligence at all, they only have a built in instinct for survival. They also tell us that there is no supreme being, there's only something that's called Mother Nature, which appears to be a chaotic chain of natural events with an uncanny ability to produce a completely functional environment as well as life itself.

The environment that Mother Nature (supposedly) created is finely tuned and tightly intertwined. A menagerie of elements interdependent upon each other in order to produce an outcome that is capable of creating and supporting life. An ecosystem that is so sensitive that any outside interference (mankind) could upset the delicate balance.

For example: in the 1950's & 60's the aerosol filled spray can was a very popular item. The manufacturer would fill the cans containing deodorants, hairspray, insecticides etc., with an aerosol gas propellant. What was unknown at the time was, that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in the aerosols were destroying the ozone layer. Ozone is a thin layer in the stratosphere that filters out excessive amounts of UV radiation as well as other forms of high energy radiation. With out the ozone layer, we would all be cooked, as in microwave. Isn't it amazing that there just happen to be an ozone layer surrounding the earth?

How does one get order from the disorder of Mother Nature? How do you get a set pattern of events, which happen the same way time after time, from randomization? You don't... the theory of natural selection, has about as much of a chance at producing life, as someone who rolls a pair of dice and consistently gets a 7.

Another point that strengthened Darwin's belief in the evolution theory was this: he examined the same species of animal, insect and plant life which were found in different geographical/environmental locations. He discovered that even though the species were of the same family, there were differences based on its geographical/environmental locations. In other words, these species had adapted to their environment. And at least in part, he concluded that the species had to have evolved.

Speaking of adaptability, there are many species of animal and insects which live in arid climates and are specifically adapted to their environment. The Australian water frog is one such creature. It lives in a cocoon filled with water under a dry lake or river bed. When the rains come again, the moisture penetrates the sun baked soil and reaches the hibernating frog. It awakens, burrows its way out of the ground and carries on with the activities of life until the waters begin to disappear again, at which time, the frog burrows its way back into the mud and goes into hibernation again. This frog can live in its cocoon for up to seven years without rain.

Everyone is familiar with the automobile. It has tires filled with air to allow the vehicle to roll across a surface with reduced friction. It has an engine to provide power by compressing a gas/air mixture in the cylinder chamber. An electrical spark which is produced by the ignition coil, is applied to the mixture. The resulting explosions force the pistons to move. This energy is then transferred to the wheels by way of a transmission and drive shaft or transaxle drive axles. There is a steering wheel to control the direction of movement, an accelerator and break pedal to control its speed and it even has doors for accessibility and seats for the safety and comfort of the occupants.

Now I ask you... Was it random, or by design?

If you had no way of knowing, (let's say that you came from a planet millions of light years away and had never seen people or automobiles before and if the inhabitants of the earth were long gone by the time that you got here) and if you have the same mind set as evolutionist, you might say that it was random.

To think that the automobile is a random event would be just as idiotic as thinking that life itself, which is composed of billions of strands of DNA, (the blue prints of life), is a random and meaningless event. Even though, each strand acts as a biological instruction manual for every living creature and is responsible for determining everything about every species and including which species it will turn out to be.

The mantis’s design serves a specific purpose. Just as all the parts of an automobile have a specific purpose… every cell in the human body functions according to its design.

One of the elements needed to sustain human and animal life is oxygen. And one of the elements needed to sustain plant life is, carbon dioxide. So in light of this fact, isn't it ironic that humans & animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen? This exchange between plants, humans and animals most certainly has the appearance of having been designed.

If animals, insects and mankind are the result of evolution, then why is man the only species that comes in so few colors and only one basic style? Why do none of the colors that we come in relate to environmental camouflage? And finally; why is man the only species (out of millions of insects and animals) capable of intelligent speech and communication? After all, if life is the result of natural selection derived from some form of randomized chaos, then other species would have been brought into existence by those same forces. The probability of certain insects and or animals having the ability to hold intelligent conversations with each other, as well as being able to communicate with other species (possibly including mankind), would be just as likely as our own ability to transcend language and cultural barriers.

Because The Theory of Evolution plays such a major part in the overall conspiracy, I will devote more attention to this misleading doctrine.

"The finches of the Galapagos islands are now called Darwin’s finches, because they appear to support evolution. Scientist did find larger beaks in response to a drought but, when the stress of the drought ended, so did the big beaks."

I would like to present you with a quote from Dr. Jonathan Wells during an interview by Pat Robertson of the 700 Club. Dr. Wells is the author of a book titled Icons of Evolution (it would be worth while to read it). His credits are as follows:

• Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from The University of California at Berkeley.

• 2nd Ph.D. from Yale University.

• Serves as a Senior Fellow at The Discovery Institute in Seattle Washington.

While studying Biology at Berkeley "I was surprised to find that a famous set of embryo drawings which supposedly showed that humans share a common ancestor with fish, were actually faked in the 19th century". He went on to say "Since I was studying embryology, the truth was obvious to me and I began following up on other famous text book images and I found that they likewise, misrepresented the truth and in some cases, are actually fake".

Why were these images faked? The real reason for such frauds in my opinion is this: since the evolutionist consistently fails to produce any incontrovertible proof, they are force to invent their own. This saves the scientific community from a major embarrassment, loss of credibility and from having to discard their beliefs. Which would once again leave the question “where did we come from” unanswered?

It took over 40 years to realize that Piltdown man, represented by hominid like fossil specimens found in Britain, was a fraud.

"Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape's jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax preformed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape’s nor the skull to be a human's. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human.

They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or Dawn Man'), and wrote some 500 books on it. The discovery' fooled paleontologists for forty five years. "

There are many inconsistencies in the evolutionist theory. The evidence has not been produced to support their claims and even they themselves have questions that must be answered in order for the theory to survive. Some people want so much to believe that, they will even make up their own proof.

Another way to help reinforce evolution is to teach it in schools as fact.

Are we being taught to think for ourselves, or have we been brainwashed?

The majority of young people in the public school systems have little reason to doubt their teachers. After all, the teachers are highly educated professionals in a position of authority. Young children are gullible, easily persuaded and can even be intimidated into accepting the doctrine of evolution.

When it's time to take a test, the child had better agree with the principles of evolution or they may end up with lower scores and even be ridiculed for not believing.  In the mind of a child, evolution is the only choice. There are no opposing views, and the theory is taught as fact along side of other scientific facts.  Some of these young people go on to become teachers themselves. They attend colleges where the theory of evolution is further perpetuated. Base on books such as Darwin's "Origin of Species", which was incomplete and could draw no definite conclusions, these new teachers go out into the world armed with small fragments of proposed truths. Many of the authors of these books and even other highly recognized members of the evolutionary belief system (religion), have admitted that there are too many inconsistencies as will be discussed below. Keep in mind that, if evolution was a fact, they wouldn't need to keep changing their views.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. If in fact, life on earth evolved according to the principles and guide lines as set forth by the evolutionist, then there would most certainly be fossilized records. The evidence would show the transition from one form of life to another for example: amphibian to reptile or plant to animal or monkey to man. All of the fossils found to date are fully formed. Where are the fossils that show animals with partially formed limbs or other biological parts? The different species all appear suddenly in the fossil record.

Even Darwin had doubts about the validity of his dogma. He writes, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" I believe that, had Darwin not been persuaded to publish his findings prematurely, he would have concluded that evolution was not possible.

Have you ever gone riding in your car and discover that your lost? After passing the same landmark several times, your spouse ask "are you lost?” Do you admit that your lost and run the risk of losing face? Or, do you play it off as if it were your intention to pass the same convenience store three times?

"Because of the lack of evidence for gradual evolution in the fossil record, more and more evolutionists are adopting a new theory of evolution known as macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution teaches that animals and plants changed suddenly from one kind to another without going through any gradual or transitional process. All the information' for the development of each particular organism was already encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce after their kinds'. "

If the scientific community has to continually change its views on evolution, then perhaps they should reevaluate the whole idea and quit trying to fit a "square peg in a round hole".

The second law of thermodynamics states that: when left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop. So the idea that life, somehow was able to come from nothing and then to build upon itself in an evolutionary manor, is in direct contrast with this law. By the way, the second law of thermodynamics is a universally accepted scientific law.

Roger Lewin, a well known paleontologist, also had some serious perplexities about the theory. When referring to the gap between people and animals, he states, "Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an "embarrassment, something to be explained away."

Alfred R. Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded "Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo sapiens so special."

Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following:

"Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative."

"Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative."

"Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative."

"On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative."

Broom asserted, "Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)... the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power."

Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. Which made all of the paleontologist's dates incorrect. It also made the presumption of human origins incorrect... "(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics)." Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani.

Paleontologist Roger Lewin admits, "The mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the Noah's Ark hypothesis..." (that we originated from one set of people at the same location not many people and places as the evolutionists concluded).

"Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection. Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies:

 (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example.

 (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism.

 (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder.

Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It would name a country that destroys all others as best. Natural Selection argues against such things as vaccinations that help the weak. It demands that the weaker not reproduce so that society not be dragged down'.

 Even animals, however, exhibit altruism. Walruses sacrifice their lives for their young. Some heard animals provide warning signals for the herd which put themselves at personal risk. Bees and ants function together and not merely in competition. And, of course, so do people do all these things. Yet Darwin stated, "If it could be proved that any species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

 Natural selection demands progress at every step of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point? "It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think."

The world is full of interdependence and it makes natural selection unthinkable. How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproduction systems to evolve? Reproduction was necessary for survival but how could natural selection create this? One sex had to exist before natural selection would bring another sex into existence. How did the first sex get there and how did reproduction take place while the other sex was forming? Or, are we to believe that they just both formed independently perfectly suited for one another?"

In the event that you haven't yet figured it out, I will put it as simply as possible. Which is to say that, natural selection/evolution is an intentional and purposeful LIE.

It is not possible to have accidental life. The conditions necessary for life to exist, are interdependent upon other innumerable circumstances. All of which must come into play at exactly the right time.

The theory of evolution is a major part of the overall conspiracy.

In reference to what we've discussed earlier (abortion, drugs, crime and immorality etc.), can in part, be traced back to the philosophy of evolution. For example: if humans are the result of evolution, then morality becomes relative to the ethics of a society (cannibalism is morally acceptable within some groups). In the beginning, there are no standards with which to set guidelines except those that, we ourselves define to be acceptable. If abortion is deemed moral and prostitution is not, then society has determined its own standards in the absences of any outside influences. If we as a group, are able to decide what's right or wrong, then we have no one to answer to except those of us who are appointed judges. Judges who also hold dear to the ideologies of the society from which they came. So with evolution, morality becomes liquid, flexible and can be made to reflect the desires of its people. There by giving an impression of a moral correctness. (Citizens of Rome use to find it entertaining to watch gladiators kill each other in the arenas. And if asked, they would not have thought anything wrong with these events).

But on the other hand, if there is a designer of life, a Supreme Being, then it stands to reason that morality would have also been part of His plan. This in turn means that morality is not flexible and can not be transgressed with impunity. The designer would also have the right to decide what's acceptable and what's not, to set guide lines and laws of conduct. He would have an expectation of how we are to behave and what consequences we will face if we don't.

Evolutionists don’t like the idea of having to be in submission to someone who's bigger, better and infinitely more intelligent then themselves. But the same can be said of many others as well. Doctors & lawyers, teachers & politicians and people in general, would all like to think that "we are special", the best of the best. It's an emotion called, PRIDE: which is to be proud, to have one's self respect, the feeling of being special. So in part, it could be said that evolution is being taught in order to hide the truth, to instill a perception of ultimate authoritarianism in the minds of the masses by this elite group and on a personal level; pride. It can also be said that, if evolution is perceived as truth, then society, by way of the authoritarians, can continue propagating its moral standards. Having the ability to change the standards, allows scientific pursuits (for instances), to be geared towards otherwise immoral acts. For example, embryonic stem cell research. If it's immoral to use embryos for this purpose but, research is allow to continue, eventually it will be acceptable to the general population and with acceptability, comes a new definition of morality.

If evolution is a fact, then not only does it justify the exhibition  of animalistic behavior among people, but it also allows for the gradual persuasion of society (changes in morality), as well as many other immoral acts and doctrines. Of which, one of the most disturbing and potentially devastating is in the following statement: "the end justifies the means". It can be said that this philosophy is responsible for literally millions of deaths. Just using America as an example, did the end result (America today, in all of its perceived majesty and greatness), justify the means (the merciless slaughter of American Indians: men, women and children)? Or, (the enslavement, torture and rape of African American men, women and children: not to mention the theft of their identity)? If there were no higher authority to answer to other than we ourselves, then and only then, would society be the judge.

The conspiracy continues to worsen...   Continued on page 2